2

I don't understand how to derive equation 1.38 in Foot's Atomic Physics (preview available on Google Books page 14 here).

I have included the relevant equations below: First we have a differential equation we want to solve:

$$\ddot{\vec{r}} + 2 \Omega_L \dot{\vec{r}} \times \hat{e}_z + \omega_0^2 \vec{r} = 0,$$

where the Larmor frequency is

$$\Omega_L = \frac{eB}{2 m_e}.$$

We look for a solution of the type:

$$\vec{r} = \text{Re} \left\{\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix} \exp{(- i \omega t)} \right\}.$$

So far so good.

However when I substitute this into the differential equation, I get:

$$\begin{pmatrix} \alpha \omega^2 & - 2 \Omega_L i \omega \beta & 0 \\ 2 \Omega_L i \omega \beta & \omega^2 \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \omega^2 \alpha \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix} = \alpha \omega_0^2 \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}$$

where I define:

$$\alpha = \frac{\exp{(i \omega t) + \exp{(- i \omega t)}}}{2} $$

and

$$\beta = \frac{\exp{(i \omega t) - \exp{(- i \omega t)}}}{2} $$.

This almost looks like eq 1.38 in the book:

$$\begin{pmatrix} \omega_0^2 & - 2 \Omega_L i \omega & 0 \\ 2 \Omega_L i \omega & \omega_0^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \omega_0^2 \alpha \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix} = \omega^2 \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix},$$

where the two differences are $\omega_0 \to \omega$ on the RHS and setting $\alpha = \beta$.

I cannot see where I am going wrong, and the book does not mention any sort of approximation that might make $\alpha = \beta$. Intuitively if the solution type we are assuming did not include the real part only, I can see how the exponential terms would cancel. But since it includes the real part, then letting $z = a + bi$ be an arbitrary complex number: $$\text{Re}(z) = a = \frac{a + bi + a - bi}{2} = \frac{z + \overline{z}}{2},$$ we should get two exponentials. Then taking one derivative changes the sign on one of the exponentials.

  • @Ghoster: See my answer for what I think happened. – Michael Seifert Nov 14 '22 at 00:20
  • If $x$, $y$, and $z$ were actually real, could (1.38) be satisfied? – Ghoster Nov 14 '22 at 00:24
  • Your (1.38) has a spurious $\alpha $, doesn’t it? – Ghoster Nov 14 '22 at 00:31
  • @MichaelSeifert Yes. +1. EP gave a nice exposition. – Ghoster Nov 14 '22 at 00:35
  • Could the moderator please explain why the question was closed? i. It is not a homework question and involved understanding a computation in the main text. ii. I provided the calculation I did to show the step I got stuck at. iii. The link provided describes PSE as being a primarily concept-based site rather than specific computations so maybe this is what caused the moderator to close the question, but doing the calculation wrong in this case would lead to me improperly understanding the physical concept involved (Zeeman effect). – Physics Enthusiast Nov 15 '22 at 22:02

1 Answers1

5

When you use complex wave notation, with the ansatz $$ \vec{r} = \Re \left\{\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix} \exp{(- i \omega t)} \right\}. $$ you don't actually substitute in $\Re(x e^{-i \omega t}) = \frac{x}{2} (e^{i \omega t} + e^{-i \omega t})$. Instead, you just substitute in $x e^{-i \omega t}$. See this answer for an exposition of what we're "really" doing when we use this notation and why it works.

If you substitute this in with just the $e^{i \omega t}$ term, you get $$ \begin{pmatrix} \omega_0^2 & - 2 \Omega_L i \omega & 0 \\ 2 \Omega_L i \omega & \omega_0^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \omega_0^2 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x e^{-i \omega t} \\ y e^{-i \omega t} \\ ze^{-i \omega t} \end{pmatrix} = \omega^2 \begin{pmatrix} xe^{-i \omega t} \\ ye^{-i \omega t} \\ ze^{-i \omega t} \end{pmatrix}, $$ and in this form it is obvious that the complex exponentials cancel out, leaving the form from the textbook you're working from.

  • Thanks so much! This was driving me crazy. – Physics Enthusiast Nov 14 '22 at 00:45
  • The one thing I'm stuck on is in the link in the answer, it mentions how at the very end of the calculation we take the real part. However it seems we solve the determinant and that pretty much is the end of the calculation -- aren't we supposed to take the real part somewhere at the end (the Google books preview is cut off at page 14, but there is an image of the rest of the section in the following PSE question here)? – Physics Enthusiast Nov 14 '22 at 00:55
  • 2
    @PhysicsEnthusiast: In the classical Zeeman effect we only really care about the frequencies of the oscillations, since that's what determines the frequencies of the emitted light. If we wanted to know the positions of the electrons given their initial positions, we'd need to proceed and take the real part of $xe^{-i \omega t}$, etc. But if all we care about is the frequencies, then there's no need to do bother with that part. – Michael Seifert Nov 14 '22 at 01:17